QuoteReplyTopic: Is 70's prog a nostalgia thing? Posted: April 22 2010 at 14:44

I have some thoughts for many years about our evaluation of the quality of the 70's music big bands like Yes, Genesis, KC, VDGG etc.I want know if it's a sure thing that we can say that those bands made better music then today's bands or all the bands coming from the 80's and 90's. I have doubts about it. Is Genesis better then Marillion or IQ, for example? Could it be a nostalgia thing. Could it be that those who experience the 70's music at the time were discovering a new thing and by so were more open to appreciate the phenomenon?

And today after 30 years of experience we could be bored by listening the music of the Neo Prog bands. If Genesis, KC or Yes didn't exist and all the golden age of the 70's, and we only knew bands like IQ, Marillion or Flower Kings, did we have the same opinions on those bands?

Is it possible that we simply can't recreate our past experience everytime we are listening to bands of today or coming from the 80's and 90's? Or, it simply that the music of that area (70's) was better.

The enjoyment of 70's music is partially a nostalgia thing for me (I also love 60's music though I wasn't alive in that decade, but I was exposed to it as a child -- even if not the particular music I listen to from that time), but I like many post 70's bands (I don't care for Neo Prog or most modern symph). For my tastes, bands such as Marillion, IQ, or The Flower Kings are not as good as the classic ones you mentioned (particularly KC and VdGG), but it's not because they came later that I don't like them. For post 70's music, most of what I listen to is RIO/ Avant oriented music. I feel that there are many modern bands in the archives that surpass the "quality" of a great many classic era bands, but not those post classic era ones you listed -- I don't find them that adventurous or interesting.

Edited by Logan - April 22 2010 at 15:11

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views" (Doctor Who - The Face of Evil, Jan 22, 1977).

I don't think the greats of the 70s were any better than the greats of today. However the number of bands has increased so dramatically, that it's much easier to find bands that just don't do anything spectacular, than to find something that amazes. There's much more wading through the garbage these days, I believe.

I don't think the greats of the 70s were any better than the greats of today. However the number of bands has increased so dramatically, that it's much easier to find bands that just don't do anything spectacular, than to find something that amazes. There's much more wading through the garbage these days, I believe.

That's what i think too. There's so much music that we have tough times to find good and original music. Like Logan says, maybe it's better to discover some new kind of prog to satisfy our taste.

The 60's and 70's were an amazing time for innovation in rock-based music (one could say the 50's too of course). There was a spirit of experimentation and breaking genre confines that I don't think we find to the same extent, generally, today. I feel like far too many modern bands are just emulating typical Prog-convention rather than being unconventional. Instead of progressive music, we commonly find regression (what I call gorp) -- looking backwards rather than forwards. And too many just incorporate classic Prog conventions with an AOR-type sound for my tastes. A lot of it so predictable and one hears the Prog band influence on the sleeves too much.

I think there are many great bands today, but not many innovative ones (certainly not ones that achieve popularity even in prog circles). There's a lot of prog cliche, and back in the day when Prog was being created, it wasn't yet cliché (though there were many poor imitators "even in the golden age".

I think a band like Marillion rather dumbed down Prog (I don't mean to be insulting), but it lifted Prog traits (especially from Genesis) while making music that was deliberately commercial-sounding (yes, bands such as Genesis and Yes have done it a lot too). I don't like melodic rock (AOR) type music much, nor a lot of pop music, and I don't think it blended well or has aged as timelessly or gracefully as classic bands music from the classic period. Rock was not progressed (expanding the possibilities of what rock music can be and freeing itself from convention) nearly so much past the golden age (oh, there are various more experimental artists/ band who have, but generally speaking).

Edited by Logan - April 22 2010 at 16:17

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views" (Doctor Who - The Face of Evil, Jan 22, 1977).

My question is a reflexive thought on the subject of our capacity to judge the quality of music by band's comparaison through the years. Maybe, it's a way to find out that we have to learn to appreciate the music in this present time without any comparaison to the past music, if it's possible.

I'm 22 and I say that music from the 70s is, in large, better than what we get today. So no.

This. (and I'm 16)

That (and I'm 21).

This (and I'm 14)

I am 18 and I agree with the previous post! + you can't compare Genesis to the bunch of Genesis imitators that is the Neo-Prog genre....

On the other hand if Genesis (or Yes, Gentle Giant, etc.) didn't exist I would be a huge Marillion (or Starcastle, Yezda Urfa, etc.) fan...but just because there is nothing better

I love Neo prog. I love Marillion. Genesis, on the other hand is one of my least favorite classic bands. I prefer the Phil Collins years, which I heard first before hearing the Peter Gabriel years. It is inexplicable, but it is what it is.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum